26 March, 2014

The humiliating rout India suffered in the brief border war with
China still rankles half a century later. Little wonder, then, that the
government was embarrassed by the appearance of a part of the officially
classified report of Lt Gen TB Henderson Brooks and Brig PS Bhagat, who
undertook an operational review of the conflict, in a foreign website.
It got service providers to block access to the report from India. This
is not the first time that the contents of the report have come into
the public domain. Neville Maxwell, who worked for The Times of London
from New Delhi in the 1960s, had revealed parts of it in his dispatches.
He provided more material from it in his 1970 book India’s China War.
Now he has posted on his website 126 pages described as Part 1 of the
report.

The Army justifies withholding of the report from the
public, saying as a rule it does not publish reports of operational
reviews. In fact, it claims, it does not even share them with the
government. It is, however, known that the Army chief sent the
Brooks-Bhagat report to the Defence Minister in July 1963 and that he in
turn forwarded it to prime minister Jawaharlal Nehru.

It is
believed that Congress governments have been unwilling to declassify the
report as it shows the political leadership, more specifically Nehru
and then Defence Minister VK Krishna Menon, in a poor light. That
explanation raises the question why the non-Congress governments did not
publish it. Even prime minister Atal Behari Vajpayee, who, as leader of
the Bharatiya Janata Sangh, was a trenchant critic of Nehru and Krishna
Menon, did not publish the report.

The Army certainly does not
want the report to be published. Answering a question in Parliament in
2010 Defence Minister AK Antony said it could not be declassified as its
contents were not only extremely sensitive but were also of current
operational value.

The plea of sensitivity is understandable.
But if the claim that the report contains material of current
operational value is correct, it reflects poorly on the lessons the Army
learnt from the debacle and the measures it has taken to improve its
capabilities.

The military and civil wings may have reasons for
wanting to keep the report under the wraps. But they must realise that
its contents have been discussed publicly and privately around the world
for decades. The report is said to have figured in the 1972 talks
between US president Richard Nixon and Chinese prime minister Zhou Enlai
in Beijing.

Non-publication of the report appears to have
caused some damage by giving it an air of authenticity which it probably
does not deserve. Although it was meant to be an operational review,
judging by material that is in the public domain, it sidesteps crucial
operational issues and reduces the process to a blame game.

The
Brooks-Bhagat finding that the Army erred in following a “forward
policy”, against its own better judgment, at the instance of the
political leadership, is not without merit. However, it cannot be taken
as the whole truth, especially since the commission did not have access
to the records of either the Defence Ministry or the Army headquarters.

The
political leadership’s conduct cannot be judged in isolation. It must
be viewed against the background of the jingoistic cries that
reverberated in the country in the wake of large-scale Chinese
incursions. There were misjudgments and miscalculations on both sides.

India
was the first non-communist country to recognise the People’s Republic
and it fully backed Beijing’s claim to China’s UN seat. Also,
overlooking the objections of some influential leaders of his own party,
Nehru accepted China’s sovereignty over Tibet, which the colonial
regime had turned into a buffer state. In the event, he viewed the
Chinese incursions as an act of perfidy.

China, on its part,
believed Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev was encouraging India to move
forward. Zhou was peeved that Nehru, with whom he had built a rapport,
did not respond to three urgent messages he sent him when the border
came alive.

As hordes of Chinese soldiers poured in
through the Himalayan passes, the newly raised and totally unprepared
Indian corps scattered in disarray. Before the Indian troops could
regroup, Beijing announced a unilateral withdrawal, obviating the need
to maintain long supply lines. Now that the trauma is over, India must
be ready to face the skeleton in the cupboard squarely.-- Gulf Today, March 25, 2014

11 March, 2014

India’s voters, numbering more than 814 million, have been called upon
to choose 543 members of Parliament as a first step towards the
formation a new government in place of the Manmohan Singh
administration, which completes its current term in May.

The
schedule prepared by the Election Commission provides for polling in
nine phases spread over five weeks, from April 7. That leaves the
political parties with little time to complete the selection of
candidates.

The Congress, which heads the ruling United
Progressive Alliance, and the Bharatiya Janata Party, which heads the
rival National Democratic Alliance, have more at stake in this election
than any other party. Both are expected to contest between 400 and 450
seats. So far they have not finalised candidates for even half of the
seats.

The election presents the first real test for Rahul
Gandhi who is in the process of taking over the stewardship of the
Congress party from his mother, Sonia Gandhi, and is almost sure to be
the prime minister if it is in a position to form a new government. He
faces an uphill task as the party, which has been continuously in power
for 10 years, enters the fray with its burden of double incumbency
compounded by a spate of corruption scandals.

He picked up the
reins too late to be able to project himself as a credible agent of
change capable of redeeming the party. He could stop the government from
going ahead with some unpopular ideas but he could not push through
legislative measures which he claimed were important tools needed to
fight corruption.

In the event, few credit Rahul Gandhi with the
ability to avert the electoral reverse that awaits the party. However, a
poor poll performance is unlikely to pose any serious threat to his
leadership of the party since he has inherited it as the heir of the
Nehru-Gandhi dynasty.

The BJP, which lost two successive
elections under the leadership of former deputy prime minister Lal
Kishen Advani, is making an all-out bid for power this time under
three-time Gujarat Chief Minister Narendra Modi.

An
indefatigable campaigner, Modi has created tremendous enthusiasm not
only among the party’s Hindutva clientele but also among large sections
of urban youth who have responded enthusiastically to his call to put
divisive issues behind and unite for development.

The Janata Dal
(United), Bihar’s ruling party and a long-time ally of the BJP, broke
away from the NDA the moment the party named Modi its prime ministerial
candidature, citing his alleged role in facilitating the 2002
anti-Muslim riots in Gujarat. That left the NDA without any constituent
with secular credentials.

However, the BJP later improved its
image somewhat by forging an alliance with another Bihar party, Ram
Vilas Paswan’s Lok Janshakti Party.

Paswan had resigned from the
NDA government in 2002 to vote against it in Parliament on the issue of
the Gujarat riots. His return to the NDA indicates readiness to work
under Modi if he becomes the Prime Minister, forgetting the 2002
carnage.

The Telugu Desam party of Andhra Pradesh, which, too,
is a former NDA constituent, is also in talks with the BJP and ready to
make up with Modi.

However, two other parties which were NDA
partners when it was in power, West Bengal Chief Minister Mamata
Banerjee’s Trinamool Congress and Tamil Nadu Chief Minister J
Jayalalithaa’s All India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam, appear
determined to pursue an independent course.

West Bengal, with 42
seats in the Lok Sabha, and Tamil Nadu, with 39 seats, are
comparatively big players and the two chief ministers are seeking to
maximise their parties’ parliamentary strength with a view to enhancing
their role in national affairs.

Mamata Banerjee recently said
that she was ready to accept Jayalalithaa or Bahujan Samaj Party leader
and former Uttar Pradesh chief minister Mayawati as the prime minister.

These developments must worry Narendra Modi, for whom this is a
‘now or never’ battle. The BJP named him as its prime ministerial
candidate under pressure from the Hindutva powerhouse, the Rashtriya
Swayamsevak Sangh, overruling the objections of Advani and other
national level leaders. If he fails to land the top job, critics within
the party are sure to attribute his rejection by the electorate to the
odium of the Gujarat riots and the RSS may not be able to persuade the
party to nominate him again. -- Gulf Today, Sharjah, March 11, 2014.

04 March, 2014

Chief of Naval Staff Admiral DK Joshi’s resignation last week,
assuming moral responsibility for a series of accidents under his watch,
has raised a host of issues about the goings-on in India’s defence
establishment.

Joshi put in his papers within hours of a fire
outbreak aboard the Sindhuratna, a recently refitted Russian-built
submarine, in which two officers were killed and seven others injured.
It was the tenth accident since an explosion in another submarine, the
Sindhurakshak, killed all 18 crewmembers on board, seven months ago.

Defence
experts have questioned the government’s swift acceptance of Joshi’s
resignation without making any effort to persuade him to stay on. Some
of them squarely blame the civilian administration for the sad state of
affairs revealed by the accidents.

AK Antony, India’s longest
serving Defence Minister, has been at the post since 2007. He was given
charge of the department, which was mired in scandals over kickbacks in
procurements, mainly because of his reputation as a politician with a
clean image. His extremely cautious approach, stemming from a desire to
avoid wrongdoing, has inordinately delayed decision-making and slowed
down modernisation of the defence forces. Antony has blacklisted several
companies which reportedly paid bribes to get Indian orders. Recent
revelations in an Italian court about kickbacks in a helicopter deal
suggest that corruption in defence purchases has not come to an end.

The
names mentioned in the Italian proceedings include those of former
Chief of Air Staff, Air Chief Marshal SP Tyagi, and three of his
cousins. Antony cancelled the order for helicopters as soon as the
kickback report surfaced. He can derive some comfort from the fact that
the name of no politician has come up.

The chopper deal
illustrates how tardy the decision-making process is. It was in 1999
that the government decided to buy 12 helicopters for the squadron that
handles flights of high dignitaries. An order worth $570 million was
finally placed with Augusta Westland of the UK, a subsidiary of
Finmeccanica of Italy, in 2010.

It has been alleged that the
helicopter specifications were revised mid-way to make the
Italian-British conglomerate eligible to compete. Following the Italian
court revelations, the Central Bureau of Investigation registered a case
and initiated steps to prevent the Tyagis and other Indian suspects
from leaving the country. But there has been little progress in the
Indian investigation.

The first major defence scandal to hit the
headlines related to the 1986 deal with AB Bofors of Sweden for the
supply of 410 howitzers for $285 million. The following year the Swedish
radio reported that the company had paid bribes to win the order. Media
reports mentioned the names of prime minister Rajiv Gandhi and some of
his friends in this connection.

The CBI, which took up
investigation, filed a charge-sheet in which Gandhi, his family friend
and Italian businessman Ottavio Quattrocchi and Bofors CEO Martin Ardbo
were among the accused. Rajiv Gandhi was assassinated and the other
accused died natural deaths as the investigations went on interminably.

In
a book published last year, former CBI Director AP Mukherjee, says
Rajiv Gandhi told him that middlemen were being excluded from defence
deals in order to raise funds for the Congress party. Assuming that he
is telling the truth, he also appears to have unwittingly revealed why
the corrupt are able to get away. India has no Deep Throat who wants to
save the system even if it calls for sacrifice of a political executive.
Instead, there are careerists ready to hold on to information until
they are of no material use.

Several defence analysts have
pointed out that delays in defence procurement are leaving the forces
ill-equipped at a time of changes in the strategic environment. They
attribute the delays primarily to the bureaucrats.

They have also
voiced concern at the growth in trust deficit between the military and
defence bureaucracy under Antony. Some troop movements which took place
near the capital when Chief of Army Staff General VK Singh moved the
Supreme Court against the government on the issue of his age had led to
suspicions of a coup attempt.

The issues the experts
have pointed out demand urgent resolution but the Manmohan Singh
government which is at the fag end of its term cannot be expected to
address them. They must wait until after the parliamentary elections in
May.-- Gulf Today, Sharjat, March 4, 2014

01 March, 2014

On November 2013 I placed a gift subscription with Reader’s
Digest for my grand-daughter. In terms of the company’s offer I was entitled to
a 2014 Diary as gift. When it did not arrive till December 30 I sent an e-mail to
the RD Customer Care unit (rdcare@intoday.com). The next day I received a reply
from Rajesh, Executive, Customer Care, saying the gifts had been dispatched to
eligible persons and it seemed probable mine was lost or pilfered in postal
transit. He said a Diary ’14 was being sent to me through courier and asked me to
allow them seven working days time.

After seven working days passed with no sign of the
couriered Diary, I wrote again on January 11. On January 13 I received a reply
from another Customer Care Executive, Mamta Pandey, who offered a totally
different explanation for the non-delivery of the Diary. “The consignment got
delayed from our end and dispatches will start within 1-2 weeks,” she
wrote.

When two more weeks passed and there was still no sign of
the Diary, I sent a third mail on January 28, and received a response on
January 31 from a third Customer Care Executive, Bharti Bhatija, who again said
they were arranging a replacement through courier and asked me to allow seven
working days for delivery. A month later, there is still no sign of the Diary
or the courier.

Since Reader’s Digest is part of the India Today Group I
sent an e-mail to the Customer Care unit of that group (wecare@intoday.com), and followed it up with a snail mail to the company.
Neither communication has fetched a response.